There are things (ie, pattern), like you and me, and events (ie, process), like us shaking hands. An event, like us shaking hands, can also be a thing, but a thing, like you and me, can’t be an event. It means that there is an orthogonal relation between things (ie, pattern) and events (ie, process), wherein the latter can be the former but the former can’t be the latter.
The fundamental problem for us humans is whether this orthogonal relation in itself can be a thing (ie, be real) or not – if it can, then realists are right, whereas if it can’t, then nominalists are right.
The fundamental problem for realists is that if this orthogonal relation indeed can be a thing (ie, be real), then things (ie, pattern) can indeed can be events (ie, process), which we concluded in the beginning that they can’t. Realists thus ultimately arrive to a contradiction (called Russell’s paradox).
Today, realism does in spite of this fact dominate biological systematics, and has recently in spite of this fact been awarded the Nobel Prize for finding what thus can’t be found. Realists view these successes as victories over nominalism, but I rather view them as victories for non-sense over sense. If such exercises are called “science”, then “science” will sooner or later be discarded, because the victories are actually abusive.
When Darwin presented his theory “On the origin of Species”, the main focus among Darwinists was on winning the battle against belief, but this focus today has to change in order to save science. If science is just as contradictory as all religions are, why, then, choose science? The other religions appear much more vivid. Science simply can’t compete as a religion with all other religions. On this battlefield, it is boring.